of companies perform daily data backups, and only 20 per cent of those that back up their data store backups offsite (Global Data Vault Inc., 2005). Although the web site of Ontrack Services does not provide specific examples of data loss, it does indicate the high costs of data recovery and the causes of data loss (Ontrack Data Recovery, 2004). While studies of document persistence on the web (such as Koehler, 2004) are primarily studies of access to data, they also throw some light on how much data is lost. Smith examined the longevity of a number of Australian winery web sites and concluded that, although a high percentage of them were still accessible, there was a significant loss of data within the sites (Smith, 2004). That the Electronic Literature Organization has mounted a project to identify threatened and endangered electronic literature and promote its pro- tection (Electronic Literature Organization, 2005) is another example of action motivated by the assumption that digital materials have been lost, or are, at the very least, are threatened with loss.
Current state of awareness of the digital
on the subject which seems, she suggests, ‘not to have risen to a level of impor- tance for historians, biographers, librarians and archivists’ (Lukesh, 1999). It remains too often the concern of only a small number of information profes- sionals, as Brindley, the British Library’s Chief Executive, pointed out during her keynote address to a digital preservation conference in 2000:
digital preservation is quite clearly not attention grabbing enough . . . to have yet brought seriously on board authors, publishers and other digi- tal content creators, funding agencies, senior administrators, hardware and software manufacturers, and so on. Take a look at the conference attendance list if you do not believe me (Brindley, 2000, p.127).
Others are more sanguine. The level of awareness is increasing, for instance among scholars, ‘who were “keen to do the right thing” but frequently lacked the clear guidance and institutional backing’ to give them confidence about what they should do. It continues to be low among funding agencies and senior administrators who set policy and strategic directions. More guidance is needed for a wide range of people with varying levels of awareness about and exper- tise of digital preservation (Jones and Beagrie, 2001, p.3). Staff members of US college and research libraries are aware of the issues in general terms, but lack specific knowledge about how to address it. Their levels of awareness form a spectrum; at one end are ‘those who are only beginning to appreciate the impact of digital preservation at the local level’, and at the other are ‘those who are taking concrete, if tentative, steps to meet the challenge’ (Kenney and Stam, 2002, p.9).
These low levels of awareness pose a continuing threat (NSF-DELOS Working Group on Digital Archiving and Preservation, 2003, p.i). This point is specifi- cally noted in Articles 3 and 4 of the UNESCO Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage.‘Attitudinal change has fallen behind technological change’ with the consequence that ‘the threat to the economic, social, intellectual and cultural potential of the heritage – the building blocks of the future – has not been grasped’ (UNESCO, 2004, Article 3). To address this threat ‘awareness-raising and advocacy . . . alerting policy makers and sensitizing the general public to both the potential of the digital media and the practicalities of preservation’ are urgent (UNESCO, 2004, Article 4).
In an Australian example discussing digital preservation at the Australian Centre for the Moving Image, Pockley notes, in relation to preservation meta- data, that
our stakeholders [individuals and industry] do not understand the need for authoritative metadata; have deeply entrenched paper-based or industry work practices; are uncertain about the ‘ownership’ of informa- tion; are not used to working and thinking in an electronic environment.
Collaboration is slow because institutions ‘have failed to raise understanding beyond a conceptual level’ (Pockley, 2002). Although this example relates specif- ically to creating metadata, it certainly applies to other aspects of digital preservation.
32 Why do we Preserve? Who Should do it?
Conclusion
This chapter has dwelt on the question of who should take responsibility for digital preservation. As well as the organizations who have traditionally been concerned with preservation (libraries, archives, museums), the preservation of digital materials must involve many other stakeholders. Their input is required to ‘decide what is kept, negotiate rights management, locate and manage the resources and develop the procedures and policies’ (Kerry, 2001, p.17). How this is to be done is not yet clear. This chapter has also considered the question of how much digital material we have lost. Although the parameters of loss are very unclear, there is little doubt that the amount of digital materials that we are unable to access, or able to access only after considerable effort and expense, is significant and will continue to increase unless action is taken. Our current ability to do this is hampered by the widespread lack of awareness of the problem. The next chapter looks more closely at why there is a problem by considering the nature of digital materials.
1111 2 3 4 51 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3111 4 5 6 7 8 9 20111 1 211 3 4 5 6 71 8 9 30111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40111 1 2 3 44 45 46 47 48 49 50111
Conclusion 33